FAN wrote:As far as Garrison's assists totals, it's all relative. Garrison had 17 assists on one of the worst offensive teams in the league. Shea Weber had 30 assists last year. 3 Canucks defensemen had more assists than Weber. What does it prove? I'm not sure it even matters. Garrison didn't get a whole lot of assists on the PP, but he was clearly the triggerman whereas Campbell was the distributor. I would expect Garrison to improve on his assists totals if the Canucks remain a strong offensive team, but to expect him or require him to double his assists totals in order to be "great" is just unfair.

Bersnoozi said he had a "great" year, unless he was the second coming of Willie Mitchell (in his prime) defensively I just don't see 16-17-33 as great is all. I'm well aware stats don't tell the whole story...but they often give an indication somewhat. I'm also very curious to see how he fits in w/ the Canucks and how he does alongside Edler. Hopefully they can generate some chemistry.

I haven't seen Garrison play period. But the similarity to Aucoin does have some merit. Aucoin had one good year when he put up points and he credited that to Messier. He said evey time he got a pass it was flat and in the right position for a one timer. Who knows how much credit for Garrison goes to Campbell, but I'm betting it didn't hurt. Time will tell

RoyalDude wrote:I see Garrison as another Adrien Aucoin. Anybody else on board with me with that comparison?

Back to Doan. Damn glad the old man hit pay dirt somewhere else. The old man experiment doesn't work here, see Sundin, and Messier.

If Garrison is an Aucoin clone I am a-ok with that. Aucoin has been a very good pro.

Mats Sundin, had he played the whole season here would have had a very good season. Down the stretch and in the playoffs he was one of the teams best players. It took him awhile to get going and to get into game shape.

Mark Messier didn't play very well here at all but the team around him was garbage. There have been a few older players that have signed here and done ok. Samuelsson comes to mind, Murray Baron had some solid years here.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:Mats Sundin, had he played the whole season here would have had a very good season. Down the stretch and in the playoffs he was one of the teams best players. It took him awhile to get going and to get into game shape.

The Sundin criticism really makes zero sense.

Gillis signed a veteran free-agent to a big 1 year deal when the team had loads of cap space.

Did Sundin screw up the Canucks cap situation and their ability to make other additions?

No, the Canucks actually had enough cap space to make significant trade-deadline additions, but no trade was made.

Did Sundin leave a negative effect on the team, or did he cause a rift in the locker room?

No, the Sedins, and especially Kesler, credit Sundin for helping them elevate their games to another level. Sundin got in Kesler's ear, got him to use his shot more and convinced him to play with more offensive confidence. The Sedins credit Sundin for showing them how a superstar deals with expectations and how to stick to playing your own game regardless of what's happening.

Did Sundin perform poorly in the playoffs?

No, unless you think 8 points, including 3 goals, in 8 playoff games is poor production.

The only thing anyone can criticize Sundin for is only scoring 28 points in 41 games...after sitting out half the year. Like Blob-Cat just said, Sundin rounded into form at the end of the regular season and the playoffs.

If someone can enlighten me as to what the big issue with Sundin was, I'm all ears. Oh, and don't give me the shit about the 2 year offer. Sundin was only going to sign a 1 year deal, and Gillis made the 2 year offer to put the Canucks on the map with big-time free agents, and to scare off other teams. Last time I checked, it was a calculated gamble that paid off, so what is the problem here?

My only problem w/ Sundin was he didn't make up his mind before training camp, at that age it was obvious he was in for a slow start. I would have been fine if he had signed here for another 2yrs to be quite honest. I thought he was solid down the stretch and in the playoffs.

This one was beyond Gillis' control, IMO. I'm more pissed about Schultz. They totally blew that one.

How did they blow it? By that I mean was there something they should have done that they didn't do to obtain him?

As I mentioned in the Schultz thread many months ago now, I've met Schultz's cousin a few times and she was super surprised that he didn't sign here.

Word on the street is that GMMG went the soft-sell route, letting the "vaunted" position of the Nucks speak for itself.

That's fine, but the hard-sell of the Oil was evidently more impressive to a young kid like Schultz.

IMO, we really really really could've used an asset like him here - and I know it's not his style, but I do wish Gillis sold him harder and that we landed a kid that - according to his cousin - wanted to play here from the moment he started playing hockey.

If that's not a HUGE fucking advantage in landing a player, I don't what is.

Potatoe1 wrote:, I just think the deck was stacked against him given Doan was desperate to stay in Pheonix.

And a smart GM would have realized this which begs me to ask, why did Gillis waste his fucking time and effort when most every other GM out there new he was going to re-sign where his heart lays which is in Phoenix. Was it because Gillis went too casual on the Schultz bid? Such arrogance thinking that Schultz was an easy signing. Pie in the face that was, losing a bidding war to the lowly Oilers. Was he trying to make up for that gaff? Go aggressive on Doan? I don't think so.

Gillis is an idiot. Plain and simple.

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

ClamRussel wrote:Bersnoozi said he had a "great" year, unless he was the second coming of Willie Mitchell (in his prime) defensively I just don't see 16-17-33 as great is all. I'm well aware stats don't tell the whole story...but they often give an indication somewhat. I'm also very curious to see how he fits in w/ the Canucks and how he does alongside Edler. Hopefully they can generate some chemistry.

But he did have a great year didn't he? He was suppose to be a stay-at-home defenseman, but he scored 16 goals which put him 3rd in the NHL in goals by a defenseman and his 10 PP goals put him 2nd in the NHL in PP goals by a defenseman. Jason Garrison... Top 3 in goals by an NHL defenseman. That's a pretty great year for most defenseman who aren't considered top offensive defensemen in the league.

I suppose we just disagree on how much weight to put on Garrison's assists totals. I just think it's easy for a defenseman to pick up assists on a high powered offensive team, where as it's rare for a defenseman to fluke goals. A defenseman who scores 15+ goals one year will generally have other years where he has scored 5+ goals. So ya I put more weight on Garrison's ability to score goals, especially on the PP over his ability to rack up assists because I don't think Garrison is in anyway special as a puckmover and he isn't paid to be a playmaker on the ice. With that said, I expect Garrison to have lower goal totals and higher assist totals.

wienerdog wrote:As I mentioned in the Schultz thread many months ago now, I've met Schultz's cousin a few times and she was super surprised that he didn't sign here.

Word on the street is that GMMG went the soft-sell route, letting the "vaunted" position of the Nucks speak for itself.

That's fine, but the hard-sell of the Oil was evidently more impressive to a young kid like Schultz.

IMO, we really really really could've used an asset like him here - and I know it's not his style, but I do wish Gillis sold him harder and that we landed a kid that - according to his cousin - wanted to play here from the moment he started playing hockey.

If that's not a HUGE fucking advantage in landing a player, I don't what is.

But even assuming you have things on good authority, I still don't blame Gillis. Do I wish Gillis made a better pitch for Schultz and signed him? Sure. But I have no problems with Gillis being honest and not making any guarantees or promises on playing time because I don't think the Canucks are in the position to do that. All along, Gillis has tried to sell a development plan for his prospects and Canucks prospects have mostly responded by going along with the plan and patiently bidding their time. The worst thing Gillis can do is to guarantee a roster spot and or playing time for a prospect who hasn't earned it. You think Lack didn't pay attention to how the Canucks treated Schneider? The upcoming season (if there is one) presents prime opportunities for guys like Connauton and Schroeder to crack the Canucks lineup. If they do, it should inspire some of the Canucks' prospects to continue working hard at their game and trusting Gillis' plan.